(Lots of salty language ahead. Dad, you’ve been warned.)
But now I’m fucking done. Because you don’t get to write an apologia for the theories of misogynist terrorists and have me come away going, “Look, we can agree to disagree. I can respect other people even when I disagree with them intellectually.”
I’m not linking to this particular column because fuck him. Go to NYT.com, go to the search bar, and look up “stupid asshats who should shut their faces”. I’m sure he’ll be in the first few hits.
But I’ll explain what’s going on for those of you who don’t know. A couple of weeks ago, this dude Alek Minassian drove his van into several people on the streets of Toronto, killing ten people and injuring sixteen. Right before he did that, he posted to his Facebook page that the “Incel Rebellion” had begun, which would overthrow the “Chads and Stacys,” and also we should all hail “Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodgers.” Elliot Rodgers, for those of you who don’t remember, was a dude in Santa Barbara who killed six people and injured ten, after posting a manifesto about how no one would fuck him, not even when he put on his most expensive and fancy shirts. For real. I read the manifesto, all 160,000 words of it (Well, I skipped the many, many paragraphs detailing his progress in various video games.) and he seemed genuinely confused that he could show up at class in a brand-new Ralph Lauren button-down and no girls jumped on his dick, no matter how hard he glared at him. And it would all be hilarious if he hadn’t then killed six people and injured ten before killing himself.
So Elliot Rodgers and Alek Minassian and apparently, like, 40,000 other people consider themselves to be “incels” which stands for “involuntary celibates.” “Involuntary celibate” was a term originally coined by a Canadian lesbian who meant it to be a bonding term for people who were sad and lonely and bereft of romantic partners, but these asshole men on the Internet stole it, shortened it, and let it rot and fester in their fetid little corners of the Internet until it turned into a rabid monster intent on the destruction of women who dare to have sex with people other than these so-called “incels”.
Stacys are hot women who don’t have sex with incels. Chads are the men who, because they are hotter, richer, and/or more charming than the incels, get to have sex with the Stacys instead. There are also Beckys, who are not as hot as Stacys, but either the incels don’t want to have sex with them because they’re not as hot as Stacys, or the Beckys have managed to trick the Chads into having sex with them via the evil plots of makeup and the “healthy at any size” movement.
I am not making any of this up. I am merely summarizing posts I’ve seen online from incel.me, their current internet hub.
Anyway, this isn’t a rant about incels, although, boy howdy, do they deserve a rant. This is a rant about Ross Douthat, who entitled his latest column “The Redistribution of Sex,” which is part of the incel community’s ethos. And he asks the question “If we are concerned about the just distribution of property and money, why do we assume that the desire for some sort of equal redistribution is inherently ridiculous?”
For real. A man paid by The New York Times, the “paper of record,” the “grey lady,” and a paper frequently accused of a liberal bias, asked that. Well, he’s presenting us a question that was asked by economist and stupid asshat who should shut his face Robin Hanson, but he’s presenting it approvingly.
He goes on to quote Hanson as saying that these incels might, just as poor people do, organize around this identity, “lobby for redistribution along this axis and to at least implicitly threaten violence if their demands are not met.”
There’s just so much wrongness it’s hard to break it all down, so let’s start with, when did avowedly conservative men like Ross Douthat start advocating for poor people who demand a redistribution of money?
Then let’s glide right past the notion that discussing “redistribution of sex” in relation to these incels would mean forcing women, who are people, to have sex with men they don’t want to have sex with, and that’s wrong. We’re going to glide past it because it should be obvious, and because I’m not going to say that part any better than Bitch media’s Dahlia Grossman-Heinze already did. But also because fucking duh, dude.
So let’s land on the fact that the incels are not “implicitly threatening” shit. They’re killing people. So far, the numbers are small, especially if you only count those who are explicitly calling themselves incels as part of the rebellion. And Ross Douthat and his buddy Robin Hanson know that; they’re talking about Alek Minassian, the guy who just killed ten people.
But even worse than being a misogynist terrorist apologist is being a STUPID misogynist apologist. In his justification for the incel philosophy, Douthat says, “The sexual revolution created new winners and losers, new hierarchies to replace the old ones, privileging the beautiful and rich and socially adept in new ways and relegating others to new forms of loneliness and frustration.”
The sexual revolution did this. The first time that the beautiful, rich, and/or charming had any advantage sexually and romantically was 1960. According to Ross Douthat, columnist for The New York Times.
And what were the old hierarchies? Who are the “others” who have been relegated to loneliness? Douthat doesn’t say, but the incels sure do. Very explicitly and clearly, they say that pre-feminism, women had to get married, so even ugly losers like them were likely to get wives, but now, women have sexual and romantic relationships with whomever they want, and they mostly want men who are … wait for it … beautiful and/or charming and/or rich.
So, Douthat, do you not understand this? Do you not understand that the complaint you’re supporting is that women have more freedom now to sex with people they like? Or do you agree with the notion that women having sex with people they like is bad, and you’re just not being as clear about it in your column?
Which kind of asshole are you, Ross Douthat?
Even stupider is Douthat’s proposed solution to this problem. He feels that, as commerce and technology progress, we’ll have a solution to these incels’ problems – prostitutes and sex robots.
I’m not even going to address the sex robot thing. It’s too stupid. I’m going to focus on this: we already have prostitutes. We’ve had them for millennia. We even have them at a wide variety of price points, such that there are prostitutes who are potentially accessible even to these fetid, useless piles of puke who call themselves “incels”.
So I’m done. I promise to never rant about this asshole again.